- Framework of problems / Objective
- Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
- Letter to the Editor - Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews
| Ref ID | 810 |
| First Author | D.P. Nascimento |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2021 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(21)00194-3/fulltext#supplementaryMaterial |
| Keywords |
Abstract / summary Spin General medical Non-Cochrane reviews Journalology/ Publication science Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Spin or subjective interpretation of findings Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 196 |
| Summary of Findings | From 196 systematic reviews of interventions from the top 5 general medical journals (1. The Lancet; 2. Journal of American Medical Association; 3. British Medical Journal; 4, Annals of Internal Medicine ; and 5. JAMA Internal Medicine) published between January 2011 and November 2017, 94% of abstracts and 67% of full texts presented at least one item of the 7-item SPIN checklist. The authors of the letter also observed critically low overall confidence in 77% reviews, 19% with low, 3% with moderate and only 1% with high overall confidence and report an association between abstracts with higher levels of spin and reviews with critically low methodological quality (ß 0.22; 95%CI: 0.14, 0.63), when compared to reviews of high methodological quality (ß -0.12; 95%CI: -2.69, 0.18). |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |